General Comments July 2019

Comments that are not specific to a certain post should go here, for the month of July 2019. Contributions should relate to the cause and goals of this organization and please, keep it courteous and civil. This section is not intended for posting links to news articles without additional relevant comment.

Join the discussion

Nope, right now there is suppose to be threat levels on the megan website along with dates of the offenses.. that hasn’t happened yet either. But for the big massive “tier” 10, 20, life requirements that’s supposely by 2024 if there is no other law made to prevent it

Concerning the case of Jeffrey Epstein, there is an interesting Youtube video with Rep. Katherine Clark questioning US Attorney Alan Acosta who is under fire for giving a clearly biased and favored plea deal to his friend. When Clark asks him how he could give such a lenient sentence to a man who violated multiple children he says the sentence wasn’t so lenient that he received some jail time, but he also had to register as a sex offender, and the world will know of his past. So here we have a United States Attorney openly admitting that the registry is a serious form of punishment, that it was such severe punishment that it justified his lenient work furlough jail sentence. And Kudos to Katherine Clark she rips this slimy corrupt US attorney apart. I can only imagine how many mandatory minimum sentences he upheld for simple CP cases. I bet there are still people wasting away in prison who went before him for non-contact offenses.

Well, he’s certainly not wrong that being on the registry is a monumental form of “punishment”, that generally far exceeds just about any amount of time you may have had to do behind bars. But that still doesn’t excuse the deal he gave him. Were the same crime committed by any plebs, they certainly wouldn’t have received just a 13 month sentence, with work release as part of it.

Pam Bondi (ex florida state attorney) was on tv the other night and said the same thing. He, Epstein, had to register as a sex offender and said it in a manor stating that as part of his punishment. As it was coming out her mouth I was like steaming.

The other thing I find interesting is everyone acts like…. wow, why are we now just finding out about all of this? Really?!! This has been all over the internet for years with people saying WTF and yet only now the mainstream acts horrified.

I think the boon is the fact it is basically admitted to be punishment when it is was deemed only regulatory. The more the lower level legal folks admit this, which we have seen more of recently in my recollection, the more those who deemed it only regulatory lose credibility on this topic, IMO.

Heck, the Tenth CCoA ought to read the US Atty statement and include it in their thinking.

The problem that I see though is that it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks as to whether or not it’s punishment, as long as legally it’s not considered to be so. It’s like how pretty much everyone considers tomato a vegetable, when it’s really a fruit no matter the public opinion. And SCOTUS are the scientists in this case, basically saying, “We don’t care what anyone calls it or thinks of it. It’s still ‘regulatory'”.

I see your point and agree you are right that the high court is the high scientist in the mix and what they say can be used as the high bar but it will be countered by those who truly see it for what it is, as has been shown. They only need a case to come forth to which they will accept to review and decide.

An example would be the “F&H” comment has lost legal credibility and has not been renounced by the high court; yet, it is commonly seen as not legit with counter info by those who are academics, legal people, the author who wrote the quote, etc while being positively used in cases.

Having to register as a “sex offender” is only deemed a civil regulatory requirement by judicial courts and by the official “Acts” of legislatures. Everyone else, including the legislators themselves and other government officials outside of the Justice branch, know very well that the “duty to register” constitutes punishment.

Had my first “compliance check” in over two years yesterday, just after I got home from work. Two men wearing bullet proof vests emblazoned with “SHERIFF” in big letters came to my door, accompanied by a city cop who kept out of sight. At first I just ignored them when they knocked, but I am pretty sure they knew I was home. They just kept beating more and more loudly on the door until I finally answered it.

They asked me to come outside. They said there was “someone” down by the street that wanted to talk to me. That was the uniformed city policeman, but they didn’t say who it was, and I couldn’t see from my doorway. I refused. I was irate, and yelled at them a bit. I told them I had nothing to say to them. They kept insinuating that they would go on an FTR fishing expedition if I didn’t “cooperate”. After a while, I’d had enough. I gave in and answered their questions. But I still didn’t come outside, nor did I sign their form. The cop eventually came to the door. As it turns out, he didn’t have any questions for me, so I have no idea why they wanted me to come outside.

I was really pissed. After they left, I drank heavily to regain my composure.

The State Police comes to my house twice a year to do the residence check. They’re always polite and decent. But, it still sucks. It ruins my day – and longer – because I get to be reminded that I have to register for something I already did my time for. I’m not one of those people convicted before 1992. So, I’m stuck on the registry for life for a non-contact crime. I’m going to eventually move out of the state some years down the road. But, I’m apprehensive about how the cops will receive me. I’m not a Tier 3. So, I shouldn’t have any issues. ….shouldn’t. I just want to get out of this backwards state permanently.

NH Registrant, you might try calling in to “Free Talk Live” radio out of Keene (New Hampshire) and talking to Ian Freeman. He has taken some very brave positions relative to the sex offender registry and sex laws. Their show is sort of the voice of the “Free State” movement. If that movement does have any eventual effect on the state of New Hampshire, which is their goal, then it might be worth sticking around. It’s a tall order but the idea behind the Free State Project is to get as many liberty-minded people to move to N.H. as to make it the first libertarian state.

OMG CR – that is horrifying and completely wrong. What state and county are you in? If you are not on paper you are under no obligation to open the door or answer any questions. Why do they keep thinking they are allowed to do this? Are you on the public site? Not that that would change anything. Unbelievable! Knock and talk is all they are allowed to do. They knock, you don’t answer, they leave. I am angry!!!

Texas, and I’d prefer not to say what county. Yes, on the public site. Completed my 10 year probation in 2002, 17 years ago. Deferred adjudication, no conviction. I wasn’t subject to registration until 5 years into my probation. I’m on for life, report in person every 90 days, plus whenever any of a host of things change.

I’ve always complied with everything required of me. I’ve lived in the same house for 22 years. My most recent in-person reporting was just 3 weeks ago. That’s why all of this is pure BS and harrassment and intimidation. The “public” is not at risk, and they know I am in compliance.

They “keep thinking they are allowed to do this” because it works. They got what they wanted.

I would think that ANY Registered Person could put a sign on his or her door that would keep law enforcement criminals away. If a person can not enclose his or her property with walls or fencing then I would think a sign would be a minimum.

People keep worrying about not “cooperating” with these criminals but “cooperation” isn’t going to keep them from investigating or arresting you. The only thing it gets you is more harassment.

It did, for certain. And at the same time, it was very stressful and intimidating. No doubt as intended. And the heavy drinking afterward didn’t really help me regain my composure, though not for lack of trying.

What worries me is that they might target me for more frequent harrasment since I wasn’t very cooperative at first.

You will no doubt have seen my response to Someone just above, so no need to repeat it here.

Start taking video of such transactions people. I do it everytime. I point to my cam on the porch ceiling. Most of the time I’ve a hand held too, especially when the union thugs pound rudely. They are liable for damages. The camera will back them off. Harassment by cop is easy to prove with good video evidence.
I ask them directly if they investigating a ” known crime” or an ” imagined crime. ”

Unfortunately SCOTUS ALSO upheld cops lying ” during interrogation. ”
What you expect different from such ” reasonable” leadership?

So, I haven’t had to register for nearly 3 years. I was never convicted in Utah nor do I have any civil judgement in Utah for criminal fines or fees. My liability for the annual Sex Offender Registry Fee is however over three years past, it was created by statute and not criminal proceedings. Well, I’ve never paid it, and went on a mission to ensure I skewed my W-4 form enough that I always had to pay taxes. Well, with the Trump Tax Plan this year, I ended up paying a lot in Federal, but sadly got a State refund. Guess who came knocking? Yes, the Utah Office of State Debt Collection is trying to Garnish my Tax Refund. I have 20 days to request a hearing, even though they denied me such a hearing in 2013 when I disputed the “fees” as expost facto fines. Here is my argument this time:

“Defendant asserts that this July 2019 recovery action is time barred by Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) for all accounts in dispute stemming from Utah Code Ann. 77-41-111. Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) states that a three-year statute of limitation applies to, “…a liability created by the statutes of this state, other than for a penalty or forfeiture under the laws of this state, except where in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by the statutes of this state.” The Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collections is subject to the civil statue-of-limitations pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-115, “… the limitations in this chapter apply to actions brought in the name of or for the benefit of the state or other governmental entity the same as to actions by private parties.” (See Exhibit D, Pezely v. Utah OSDC, Civil No. 139920053, RULING AND ORDER, 9/22/14, page 2).
Defendant asserts that because the District Court is the court of review for review hearings pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 63G-4-401 and 63A-3-308, Pezely is mandatory authority for the purposes of stare decisis in the application of the civil statute of limitations upon the Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collection. Soon after Pezely, the Utah State Legislature Amended 78B-2-115 pursuant to S.B. 136 during the 2015 legislative session (Exhibit E), to address the Pezely court’s ruling and modify the statute so that criminal fines, fees, and restitution were not subject to the civil statute of limitations. However, the Utah State Legislature did not act to reverse the Pezely court’s determination that the civil statute of limitations applies to the Division of Finance, Office of State Debt Collection; therefore, that portion and statutory interpretation of Pezely is binding during this review.
While the liabilities in question have been assessed by the Utah Department of Corrections, they do not stem from any criminal adjudication within the jurisdiction of the State of Utah; therefore, the “criminal fines, fees, and restitution” exemptions under Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-115 do not apply to these liabilities, “created by the statutes of this state, other than for a penalty…” (Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) and 77-41-111). Furthermore, the State of Utah has painstakingly litigated numerous times that the Utah Sex Offender Registry is a “…nonpunitive measure…ascertainable from the simple fact that the legislature placed the statute in the civil code as opposed to the criminal code.” See, Fedemeer,227 F.3d at 1253 (10th Cir. 2000), Doe v. Shurtleff, 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010). Thus, these liabilities cannot be said to be punitive in nature under the legal rationale and legislative intent of the State of Utah.
The last liability in dispute was delinquent on June 30, 2016. Therefore, all liabilities at dispute here are past the three-year civil statute of limitations pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78B-2-305(4) and further civil action on these liabilities after June 30, 2019, to include recovery by garnishment, is barred as a matter of law.”

Of course if they argue it is somehow a criminal fee, I added a few pages of arguments as to why that would be expost facto.

Congress shall pass” no law” increasing the punishment for a crime.
Civil law can indeed increase punishment, thus SCOTUS uses a two pronged test. Intent 1, effect 2nd when weighing the question. The twisting ( turning on its head) the question in DOE03 was atrocious and the minority said so. They remember history & arbitrary regulatory regimes. Who thinks the German national socialist elites didn’t take the moral high ground, justice pleas, and public safety concern in their actions against Jews, gypsies, and other undesirables. History repeats.

While some may cringe claiming the ” jew” and ” sex offender” are incomparable, they do so in error. It is the connotation of projected evil promulgated by Authoritarian rule and their propaganda regimes that breeds distorted and demented thinking among the masses. In prewar Germany it was the powerful Catholic church AND legal jurists who looked the other way. It’s happening here too and the Rehnquist court played the foyle again. Mr Kennedy knows it.

By keeping registrants off of social media someone kept these facts secret.

CR ~ No need to disclose your county, and I am not sure why Texas would be different than anywhere else. You served your time and should be a “free” person. You are not obligated to answer the door, and you are not obligated to answer any questions. If they keep knocking, you can open the door and tell them you live there, and close it again. Otherwise, I would tell them that you are contacting your lawyer, and that you know your rights. They thrive on people who don’t know their rights. I understand that it creates a great deal of stress. That alone is punishment. Have you reached out to Texas Voices? I think it is a group similar to Janice’s California group. I would ask them for suggestions. When we had a similar compliance check, I contacted the agency who did this and complained. I explained to them that I know we don’t have to answer the door or answer any questions, and they agreed. Just show them that you know the law!

i don’t know what texas you live in, there are no tiers here, you are low, medium, or high
maybe you are considered high, but if you got probation i am wondering.
my son had to register every 30 days due to living in a hotel, you live in a house? why every 90 days.
no one has visited me in over 2 years, and when they do they are very polite and i am the same.
if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.
we have had our business for over 25 years and i travel with no repercussions. i am on lifetime registration. we are very fortunate.

@texas 2, I said nothing about tiers. Nor did I mention risk level. I also do not have an assigned risk level. My risk level on the public web site is displayed as “NOT REPORTED”. The law that created the risk levels did not exist when I committed my offenses, nor when I started registering, and it was not made retroactive when it became effective.

Yes, I live in a house, the same one for the past 22 years. And yes, I report every 90 days. Reporting frequency depends on the number and type of offenses, not on whether you were convicted or got deferred adjudication probation. I don’t know if risk level affects reporting frequency for those who have one. I am sure it does not in my case since I don’t have one.

I had probation officers visit regularly while I was on probation, of course, until I got off in 2002. But I had never been visited for a compliance check before 2017. On that first occasion, it was four plain clothes city cops. They were pleasant, not demanding, not intimidating. It made me angry, and I didn’t like it at all. It was late afternoon on a week day, and there were numerous neighbors out and about who witnessed it. But I kept my cool. We talked, I answered their questions, I signed their form, and they left.

This latest occurrence was my second time to be subjected to a compliance check. Only this time, it was Sheriff’s department people in bullet-proof vests, plus a uniformed city cop. It was much more attention-getting and visible to neighbors. Maybe that is the point, I don’t know. They said they were conducting the compliance check “for” the cop that I report to every 90 days. Interestingly, my first compliance check occurred just four months after that officer took over the post from the previous one.

“if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.”

I very much disagree with you. That is the “nothing to hide” argument that people use to justify government surveillance and unwarranted intrusion into our lives and private affairs. You may not value your privacy, but I do.

I’m off paper. I comply with the bogus “civil regulatory” registration statute because I must, but I’m not under any form of state supervision anymore. The “compliance squads” have no business checking up on me at all.

Yep, fuck them. I think allowing law enforcement criminals to get near or speak to you sends a very strong, bad message. No one should ever dream that the Registries are acceptable. I would put a wall or fencing around my property and never allow them in.

@Will, my back yard is fenced. I’ve thought about fencing the front. A wall would not be approved by the building codes where I live. Maybe a white picket fence.

My spouse and I have agreed that choosing a property that we can completely wall in and bar access to with a locked gate is a requirement for our next move.

Even if we move to a state that doesn’t require me to register, it will remain a requirement. The thing about getting off the registry is that you never know if the state will pass a retroactive law in the future that will sweep you up into its grasp once again.

@Mot:
Yeah, I saw that too. It seems it’s stupidity piled atop stupidity. Being a Tier III, NY requires in-person reporting every 90 days, even though he said he was only there 10 days a year (sure Jeff…but let’s roll with it). That’s stupid number 1: making him be in NY more than he wishes to be…how does THAT help public safety? Then, NYPD doesn’t make him do the 90 day thing. Stupid number 2: Willfully and knowingly flouting State law is not an effective path, NYPD.

How does he get away with it? The lawyers call it “wherewithal.” Being civil means they MUST release you anyway. So what is gained by not? – Time fighting motions by state. Does the website crash if you don’t register?

I think it’s obvious that he’s the poster child for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries. But some may think it just means that registries should be more strictly enforced and more severe punishment. I don’t know what the eventual public reaction to this will be.

It does seem like law enforcement at every level is implying that his being on the registries was clearly additional punishment. Isn’t that what we have been saying all along?

Good article, but I bet Reason would do an even better job. I hope they write one using just such facts to highlight the ineffectiveness and unfairness of registry schemes that can be so easily thwarted, and laws so easily flaunted, by those with money and powerful connections.

Woe betide those of us who have neither. Unlike JE, we escape nothing, and we’d be FTR’d in a flash if we tried.

@CR,
I’m purposefully into an FTR NOW! Seriously
Looking forward to seating a jury.
Just getting warmed up, 3 summons rates with no attorney!
The 7th circuit court , ROCK COUNTY WI WILL SUFFER MY WRATH!
6 yr. max, but I’ve got an edge, it’s called truth.
The cop who came along with SOR AGENT to house looking for SOR form\me asked the ideal question. ” Is there a judges signature” precisely because he expects it to be present. (Calder v Bull, #4).

Could you explain what you mean about the judges signature, and what it has to do in the context of the SOR form? Did the cop ask you, or did you ask him? The latter seems more likely, but I wasn’t sure if I was reading you right.

CR,
Judicial signatures appear on ” notices of conviction” along with the other parties ( DA, Defense attorney into bar#) sentence structure. By state statute it is the very documentation that makes the sentence ” lawful & Certified”. The same doc, must be present for a sheriff to” take custody” of the convicted.( Per stat.)

The touchstone judgment is fodder for a jury in FTR. A jury will find no mention of ” a life term. ” on that doc. STATE will point to SOR statute 301.45 1g(b) ” was in prison for…..a sex crime statute”
Important to recall 03SCOTUS, admitted freely it was ex post wording but not ” intended as punitive( sword) but regulatory (sheild).

“I think it’s obvious that he’s the poster child for the ineffectiveness of sex offender registries” – how so?

Are any of the new charges related to conduct from after he was required to register? I was under the impression it was about the time frame pre-conviction, with different accusers.

And I am a gonna say it…. my outrage about unforced and biologically appropriate activities with persons old enough to be charged, prosecuted, and sentenced as adults in every single state in this country, while against the law, is very limited. I am beyond perturbed by the rampant government corruption, coverups and lack of judicial equality for those rich and poor, that rivals some of those sh!thole countries that “we” like to bomb into civilization.

I am also wondering if some of the alleged victims in this case, who are alleged and who have described recruiting additional, and ever so younger, alleged victims, will be prosecuted as adults. I have no doubt they will be held accountable for their own sex trafficking crimes, right? I mean, how could they not?

@David:
IDK that we’ll approach Europe’s right to be forgotten, but there is plenty of chatter on Capitol Hill about changing how privacy is handled. Big Tech’s foray into swaying elections was a bit much for Congress (they don’t like competition). Granted Big Tech can and will throw big money at the crooks, but I still think some form of opt-in requirement for data usage isn’t a pipe dream. This Congress? Absolutely not. But maybe the next one.

In my current and continuing digging into Carolene and Chastleton, I’ve stumbled upon something that may make it possible to challenge Smith. Please indulge me a bit, and you fellow armchair JDs are encouraged to play along and offer thoughts and critiques (critiques in particular are helpful).

Anyway, the underlying case is Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. Waters (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/405/), with the interesting tidbit from it being: “A statute valid as to one set of facts may be invalid as to another. A statute valid when enacted may become invalid by change in the conditions to which it is applied.” My thought with these two sentences is that the first one could maybe be used to attack the data SCOTUS used in Smith (“that set of facts doesn’t apply to me, your Honor, as I was not and am not a recently released violent offender.”) and the second one could be used on the recidivism data itself (“assuming, arguendo, ‘frightening and high’ recidivism existed in 2003, conditions have changed and recidivism is no different than for regular offenders.”)

Adding to that is another more recent case from SCOTUS. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-274/), SCOTUS not only cited the above Nashville Ry. case, but Carolene and Chastelton as well. J. Breyer made some salient points about challenging previously decided cases when facts change. I won’t copy-and-paste the long dicta here, but those interested should consult the case and read through II-A in the Opinion.

Beyond all that, a 10th CCoA case provides some decent citations. Again, it’s too long to paste here, so see: Footnote 8 from Dias v. City and Cnty of Denver (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/172192/dias-v-city-and-county-of-denver/). One snippet from that footnote is: “a legislative classification must be judged in light of today’s circumstances, and that a classification deemed reasonable at the time of enactment can become quite arbitrary with the passage of time.” If that doesn’t apply to Smith and RC laws, I don’t know what does.

I like this reasoning… I’m no armchair JD (LOL), but I love reading your opinions. I’d love to see this taken up, maybe in conjunction with other aspects.

Speaking of which, I’ve wondered: if one files a suit like this, is it GOOD or BAD to throw the whole kitchen sink at it (not sure that metaphor is right)? Or should you file with a limited number of challenges, see if they work; if they don’t you can file again with other challenges. Meaning, e. g. file With your scenario here plus equal protection grounds in a suit but hold back right to travel and ex post facto for a second suit if needed. Does a suit at some point get too complicated and unwieldy?

@E:
Re: filing. My personal belief is that when it comes to RC stuff, throw the kitchen sink at them. If something isn’t raised at the initial trial, it cannot be raised during the appellate process. Given the broad and deep infection of RC laws in society, I feel it behooves dumping the whole dirty mess on the court, thus showing it’s not “just” this or “just” that. RC laws interactively affect a number of rights at once, so my fear is holding back would water down an attack. Of course the more you claim, the more you have to justify and combat.

@AJ, your ideas sound promising. I must reread the Smith opinion and dissents with these new concepts in mind.

This would not be a direct rehash of Smith ’03 or a challenge of its holding with respect to facts and circumstances in that case at that time, but rather a challenge to its applicability to current registration schemes in light of data that has accumulated since regarding recidivism and dangerousness of “sex offenders” compared to other categories of offenders, showing that the same analysis used in Smith would tip the scales the other way when applied to the facts, circumstances, and effects of registration schemes as they exist today.

Might that not overcome rational basis as the standard of review? Or would it just show that current schemes can’t survive even that standard?

@CR:
You are correct. It would be a claim that regardless the validity of Smith at the time, facts have changed and it can no longer be properly applied. One could even say it’s arbitrary and capricious.

I suppose one may be able to find something greater than rational-basis upon which to rely; however, my thought was taking the tack that though (arguendo) rational in 2003, it no longer is. Or, paraphrasing from the Dias case: “although [registry laws] sustained [nearly] twenty years ago may have been justified by the then-existing body of knowledge, the state of science in 20[1]9 is such that the[y] are no longer rational.” Even if purely-Smith RC laws are upheld, I think the litany of restrictions and laws beyond it are vulnerable to attack using this, and other, concepts.

AJ and other almost-JDs: being in the 7th, and that this digs into right to travel and equal protection, could this be used as a template to file on Wisconsin and their insane law differentiating between those who committed their offense there and those who didn’t? (Statute 301.45)

Short reminder of the issue: if you commit an offense in WI, you may never deregister, even if you move out of state. Annual mail in registration for life, worldwide. BUT: if you commit an offense somewhere else and then move to WI, you only register while there. If you move out of the state again you DO deregister. If that’s not an equal protection horsehockey racket, mixed up with right to travel (though I’m not certain how you’d argue it), I don’t know what is.

And would it be worth filing before this goes through the 7th, or keep my pennies and wait to see what they say??

I don’t think Saenz v Roe would apply in a “right to travel” analysis because the state, in this case, is treating its own citizens worse than it treats those who move there from other states, who then leave again down the road.

Texas does something like this too. It requires registration of those who receive deferred adjudication for a registerable offense committed in Texas, but not of those who who receive a deferred adjudication in another state for a similar offense, who subsequently move to Texas.

Maybe there is an equal protection angle. Maybe there is a different right to travel analysis that would apply, since WI refuses to release its hold on those who committed an offense in the state, when they leave. AJ suggested that I look into “long arm jurisdiction”, but I haven’t yet done so.

Yup, I’ve looked at long arm jurisdiction quite a bit on this. Seems a viable angle to sue but no clue which way it would fall. Can’t find any suits that were from that angle (essentially forcing them to defend their long arm jurisdiction and seeing whether a judge would buy it). Maybe combing it with equal protection…

@E:
As you point out, there’s no clear case history regarding long-arm statutes. So far it seems to be holding up, but I suspect that’s mostly due to how it’s applied (insurance companies, etc). Given those affected by it have a continuing tie to the long-armed State, there’s really no case. It’s when someone has completely severed all ties with a State where I think long-arm may fail. If I leave NY or WI and have zero ties (no banking, no real estate, no doctors, etc) there, how can they claim continued jurisdiction? And the longer I’m gone, the less valid that claim would seem to be.

Perhaps the best way to attack would be to show how the long-arm statute(s) burden some right or interest. For example, suppose I’m off the registry where I live but WI/NY keeps me registering. This would seem to burden my Freedom of Travel fundamental right (IML). As a fundamental right, it’s automatically subjected to strict scrutiny. As such, the burden would be on WI/NY to show how and why the continued registration meets strict-scrutiny criteria.

I do wonder if a Due Process claim along the lines of Humphries (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1244887.html), et alia, would work in WI or NY. I know NY has the O’Donnell case. I forget the specifics, but IIRC it was a ruling that since NY has no de-register process, one cannot de-register. However, I don’t believe the Humphries angle was taken. Perhaps it could/should be. Lack of a removal process can be a Due Process violation.

They had the O’Donnell case, but there was a separate decision for one of the clients named Roe who was from Pennsylvania who moved to NY for work then moved back to Penn later. He was able to be removed from the registry in NY where everyone else who was part of the O’Donnell case remained because their cases originated in NY and his was from out of state.

I meant to add, in case it wasn’t clear already, that WI isn’t witholding a benefit from those who move there from somewhere else. Instead, it is treating them identically to its own citizens when they arrive. Then it treats them more favorably than it treats its own citizens when they leave the state. It doesn’t burden a right to travel for those who came from another state, and who then later depart.

For WI to maintain its grasp on those who committed an offense there after they leave would appear to be legal. Or at least it hasn’t been successfully challenged yet, so far as I know.

I really don’t see how WI can require people convicted in the state to continue registering after they leave and become a permanent resident of some other jurisdiction. Do you know of any challenges, and what the outcome was?

My reasoning was along the lines of: it burdens my travel outside the state, certainly compared to anyone not convicted there. It also burdens my travel internationally if I moved to a state that did not require me to register, but WI still does though I have not lived there for decades.

If you live in Wisconsin, you have to register. If you leave, they continue to make you register. No matter where you take up permanent residence, it follows you.

As I have said, I don’t see how they get away with it. I don’t think it should be legal. Somehow, it is, or it hasn’t been properly challenged. But the unending lifetime registration requirement imposed by WI is the same no matter where you move. There is no incentive or disincentive on you to move based on it. It neither encourages you nor stops you from taking up residence wherever you wish. There is no benefit granted or denied.

Sorry, but I simply don’t see how your fundamental right to travel is implicated. I can think of no way that the registration requirement could be challenged based on right to travel.

@E & @CR:
The only way I can see WI’s continued registration requirement burdening anything, travel or otherwise, is if one can show that only due to this specific registration does a burden exist. So if @E is still required to register in any other jurisdiction, I don’t see any legally valid claim. If @E only registers in WI, it may be a different story. Even then, though, I think it will be a tough claim. @E could perhaps claim a taking (re-application fees and time) in that his passport gets revoked and replaced purely due to WI’s requirement. I suspect showing a burden via cruise travel may be easier than via air travel. With cruising, one could maybe point to the cruise line refusing carriage simply due to being on WI’s registry. Proving air would be trickier, as the carrier doesn’t refuse service; it’s the behind-the-scenes paperwork the Feds send that cause problems–and which may be impossible to nail down. Finding a demonstrable burden that occurs purely and solely to WI’s registration requirements is about the only path I can see.

Thanks for the thoughts and discussion, guys. I’m disappointed. I did think there is at least an equal protection issue here (if not travel).

Ongoing registration for life in multiple jurisdictions doesn’t seem reasonable, with conflicting requirements and different things they need updated in differing timeframes. Maybe there’s no “unfairness” way to attack it after all.

@NY Won’t Let Go:
Too funny that Roe was the guy’s last name! If you can give me the parties, what court system (NY State, Federal District, etc.), and the date, I can probably find it. Even better if you can find a docket/case number.

Or, you can always just anonymously upload it at https://uploadfiles.io/. Just be sure to copy and paste the URL it gives you when you’ve uploaded.

@NY won’t let go:
Thanks for the doc. You may have a case there, although O’Donnell chips away at the case upon which this decision relies (People v. Arontin, https://www.leagle.com/decision/200586419ad3d8451173). There may be some wiggle room, though I foresee the State relying heavily on O’Donnell since that’s where NYSC said the lack of a deregistering process means the Legislature intentionally didn’t want one. That could be very tough to fight.

@AJ I still don’t understand how listing my foreign address protects anyone in the state of NY.

All it’s gotten me is death threats at my foreign address because some guy at work didn’t like that a girl at the office had eyes for me and not him. He tried digging dirt on me so he googled my name.

then he tried to out that I’m on the registry in the US, but 1. People didn’t care what he had to say because he was an asshole. And 2. I’m on a valid visa and they figure if my visa is valid then that means I’m okay.

@NY won’t let go:
“I still don’t understand how listing my foreign address protects anyone in the state of NY.”
—–
It doesn’t. It almost sounds like it’s done just to “get” you doesn’t it? Almost like it’s punitive. Naw, couldn’t be. But what part of RC laws make sense?

It’s only another felony or two if I don’t update all my info with them within 3 days of moving, getting a phone number, a new email erc. Or if I don’t send them a new picture every 3 years it’s another felony even though I don’t live in US jurisdiction.

Does or has anyone followed the blog 5to20.net? It has all but disappeared including his twitter feed. He is currently incarcerated for CP and has been posting for years. I came across it a couple of months ago from a link from another site similar to this one. Caution Click maybe. Anyway it was a great blog. He had about two years yet to go.

@Mp…Thank u for turning me on to 5to20.net…I’m currently reading about an inmate, first offense, who is doing 12 in a fed prison for cp possession..I think I will stop whining about the six months I had to do in county for similar offense…

So you were able to get onto this site? I still am unable and the twitter has been removed as well. Although I don’t use twitter I still could see his twitter posts and now it says…”that page doesn’t exsist”. Yep the 12 years is insane, but that has happened to so, so many.

@ReadyToFight
The specifics of the Certificate of Rehabilitation is listed in PC 4852.01 – 4952.21.
The short version as I understand it is you need to have been sentenced to felony and prison, or felony probation with an expungement, or misdemeanor with expungement. For many the issue is if you qualify for the expungement.
Also you need to meet the residency requirements which is typically 10 years – for some 7 years.
If you think you qualify before the tiered registry goes into effect I highly recommend seeking out legal advice. The final decision is at the judges discretion so finding and using a skilled advocate can be very persuasive.

I just got this email back today from the intern at Michigan’s ACLU and I thought I would post it for who ever is interested.

Bobby: Thank you for your interest in the Doe V Snyder case. I understand your frustration. Government does move slow and the court will probably let it go beyond the Aug 21 deadline if we are making progress. Please understand we are doing our best and hope that with working with the courts and all the stake holders in this matter we will get a better outcome for all the people on the SOR. Please do not contact Miriam as she is very busy and is unable to answer all the emails. And when she does answer emails it is taking away from her valuable time that she could be spending on legal issues for this case and others. You are free to contact me at this email address and I will get back to you when I can given all the emails we are getting. As for a recording of the conference call I am not aware that we have one but I will do some checking.

I love this quote by the judges:
This determination naturally takes place on a continuum, contact offenders are generally more dangerous than non-contact offenders, and non-contact offenders whose actions are likely to create a fear of bodily harm are generally more dangerous than non-contact offenders whose actions are unlikely to generate such fear. Cf. Commonwealthv. Suave, 460 Mass. 582, 587-588 (2011), quoting G. L. c. 123A, §1 (under civil commitment statute for sexually dangerous persons, non-contact offender is not “menace to the health and safety of other persons” unless offender’s “conduct will objectively put his [or her] victim in fear of bodily harm by reason of a contact sex crime”). Therefore, while we agree with SORB that under some circumstances the danger posed by non-contact offenses such as open and gross lewdness might suffice to support a level two classification, see G.L. c.6, §178C, we conclude that an individual is generally unlikely to pose a moderate degree of dangerousness and thus to qualify as a level two sex offender where his or her risk of reoffense relates only to noncontact offenses which do not put a victim in fear of bodily harm by reason of a contact sex offense. See Doev. Attorney Gen., 425 Mass. 217, 221&n.7 (1997)

@Lake County:
“So in CA, why are they placing non-contact CP cases in tier 3?”
—–
Silly rabbit, it’s because it’s a non-punitive regulatory scheme. IOW, each and every jurisdiction can decide what it wants, how it wants, as it wants, and SCOTUS gives thumbs up.

@mot
The real ID is a federally compliant drivers license – California does not meet the federal guidelines for acceptable forms of identification. So a regular California ID will not be accepted as a form of ID for things like airport inspection.

People from California then have the choice of getting the real ID or using their passports. The real ID does not include any type of stamp for 290 and will not replace a passport for international travel.

I doubt that the RealID’s will ever replace passports. You would need every country to agree to accept a RealID instead of passports. Plus it’s more convenient to have them as separate documents. A government agency might want to hold or revoke a passport to limit your travel, while letting you keep your ID for it’s original intended purpose. And, the passports are a big money maker that employs many federal workers. I doubt that the Federal Government trusts all 50 States to issue an ID that will work as a passport.

I forgot about the need to have a way to stamp passports. How else will other countries be able to deny entry based on what countries you’ve visited in the past? People holding a passport from other countries containing a stamp indicating they have visited Israel are banned from six countries.

For many people, a passport is an official second form of photo identification along with a state provided identification card or driver’s license. Those who work for the United States government have forms of identification that can pass as official photo identification, but that’s not available to everybody of course. There are also other approved forms of government employment identification that can be used as second photo identification in some instances where approved.

The two things that are available to everybody are a state provided
photo identification and a passport. Using one to replace the other would create problems for a lot of people.

@Mike:
You should’ve been removed once you dropped from ME’s website. Were I you, I’d check to ensure you’re not somehow still on ME’s ML site. If not, I’d contact SMART and submit the letter. Why’d you wait nine years to question this!??

As for travel to MA, your status in ME (or anywhere else) is irrelevant. You’ll have to comply with MA’s “regulations” regarding RC registration. That may mean you’re free and clear, or it may mean getting registered, IDK.

This raises a question for RCs traveling to places like MA and NY, where some assessment board determines one’s tier. If I show up in MA/NY, must I hang around and get assessed? What if I’m only in-state long enough to trigger registration, and then leave? Or do they simply toss a visiting RC into whatever tier s/he has in the home State? That would seem to be an Equal Protection Issue, since the migrant/visitor would be treated differently than a resident.

I checked in with 1 center street in may,still waiting for my hearing level to be determined I was told do nothing till I hear from them,do I still have to check in? nothing was said or nothing in writing was done to instruct

They called me when they wanted me to come in and when I got my letter in the mail they had me come see them again and we talked about if for a while.

They told me I should have been a tier one and that I should fight the determination.

I fought it, lost , got stuck with a tier two. Apparently since I was under 25 when it happened originally it made me a higher risk? (Which made no sense, I’d just turned 19)

Anywho, the people at 1 Centre street are actually a good bunch of cops.(at least they were to me) I was the least of their worries.

The prosecutor from Albany who came down for my hearing on the other hand was a dick.

They will send you a letter telling you your level and you can either have the hearing and fight it or just accept it.

90% of the people accept it.

If you fight it, it will take about a year and they will try to make you a tier 3 for “not accepting responsibility for your actions/crime” even if you plead no contest as NY doesn’t recognize NC pleas

“If you go to NY they won’t list you on the public registry until after they determine your tier.

This can take up to a year if you elect to have the actual hearing…”
—–
Wow. This is the stupidity of the whole process. So NY could take up to a year to decide if months earlier I was a risk. Umm, hasn’t the risk passed? And then let’s keep me on the NY registry forever (assuming Tier II+) for the public safety. And this is rational how?

I do some work for an attorney here in NY handling SORA cases. NY doesn’t define “residence” however once you move and establish a new address in NY you have 10 days to notify DCJS of your arrival in the state. They will then send you a form to fill out, basically starting the registration process.

Then, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in Albany, will send you a notice that your case is under review. You have an opportunity to send any information to the Board to mitigate your circumstances (creating these packages is part of my job). The board will make a recommendation of tier 1, 2, 3 and forward a case summary to the court. You will be scheduled for a court hearing in the county in which you reside where a judge will make a final ruling. The DA will argue for a higher level most of the time. It can be an adversarial proceeding which is why having an attorney with SORA experience is helpful.

While still very flawed and outdated, NY actually has one of the better systems in terms of due process. (Although that’s not saying much). At least you have an opportunity to present information that you do not pose a risk.

I can tell you that you’d want to do everything in your power to fight for level 1. The difference is immeasurable. Level 1 is NOT on the public registry. One has the chance to live a fairly normal existence.

New York also allows for level modification or reduction. It’s a similar process that we’ve been successful with and that can provide some relief as well.

NY Won’t Let go….what’s the condensed “readers digest” version of your case? Just the nuts and bolts. I can talk with the attorney and see if it has a good chance at a reduction. If the basics are there I’ll post the info here and you can contact the office. It sounds interesting with you being out of the country….

Plead NC to Assault with intent in Michigan in 2007 was given 18 months probation and time served of 280 days in county.

Moved to NY in 2013

No new crime or reoffends since 2007. Moved out of the country close to 3 years ago.

When I moved out of the country I informed NY and all.

They told me that even though I’m not in their or even US jurisdictions physically they can still charge me with another felony Failure to register and have me deported back to the US if I don’t update them any time I move, get a new email etc. basically all the stuff I would be doing if I live in NY.

So I still have to send my picture to them and update them any time something changes.

I haven’t lived worked or gone to school there and when I did it was only for a few years.

There’s a couple questions that I do not yet know the answer to that would relate to your case.

1) I know that NY does not remove people from their database, however it does seem odd that they would continue to require you to report after leaving their jurisdiction. Did they send you the law in writing regarding this?
2) in terms of looking for a reduction to level 1, your relief would come after 20 years. The questions is does NY give you credit for the time you spend on NC registry from 07-13 or when you first registered in NY? The earliest you would come off is 2027, the latest 2033 with level 1….better than life. But relieving you of the duty to physically register and update is a big deal too.

I’m curious about the law and how it applies as you have a few things going on here. I can send a letter to DCJS unless you already have this info? Also where did you move to?

Sorry for the miscommunication when I wrote NC I meant No contest plea😅

I registered in Michigan.

As for the updating them it depended who I had talked to in Albany as some had said I would have to fly back to the US every year and others said I would have to update them any time something changed as well as do the every 3 year picture.

No one could give me a real straight answer on this.

I’m pretty sure I could get off the registry completely if I had the money to bring suit. As there is a case very similar to mine, but in his case he was only one state over.

I had spoken with a lawyer about it prior, but I haven’t been able to save up the amount to bring a federal lawsuit.

I’ve been registering as a whole since for about 12 years now. Living a crime free life. The worst I’ve gotten since is a parking ticket in Long Island.

As to where I have moved I would rather not put it in a public forum but it shows on the NY registry and is about 12 or 13 hours ahead of you now.

There are actually quite a few of us living overseas stuck on the registry but unlike mine they originated in NY

“There was a supreme Court ruling in 2016 that decided that when a registrant moves out of a jurisdiction they are not required to update with that state.”
—–
This case, Nichols v. U.S. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/15-5238/), probably won’t help. Nichols was charged with violating Federal SORNA, and SCOTUS specifically stated he was still liable for violating the State’s (KS) de-registeration law. (Dual sovereignty strikes again!) Therein lies the problem for @NY won’t let go…he’s still being subjected to NY’s long-arm enforcement via Doe v. O’Donnell (https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20110609342).

As for the change in the law, SCOTUS directly addresses it in the Opinion:
*****
If the drafters of SORNA had thought about the problem of sex offenders who leave the country and had sought to require them to (de)register in the departure jurisdiction, they could easily have said so; indeed, that is exactly what the amended Wetterling Act had required. 42 U. S. C. §14071(b)(5) (2000 ed.) (“report the change of address to the responsible agency in the State the person is leaving”).
*****
There’s your answer for how, when, and where the federal laws were changed. IOW, the door through which Nichols went has been barred shut, and even if it weren’t, the State laws still apply.

@Bobby……hey bud, I tried to listen to that recording you posted twice and got roughly 5 minutes into it when it just shut off….just thought you should know….thanks for tracking that down and attempting to post it though!

Josh, I just checked it and was able to listen to the entire call, I did have to hit the play button again, but only once. The one think I was most interested in was the pre- sorna part for people like you me Bill and a few others, sorry can’t remember their names off hand right now. Anyway, if I’m understanding it correctly we should be removed asap, once the final draft is worked out, bit feel free to correct me of I am wrong.

That’s So. Maryland for you. I lived there for a bit a while back and learned why they had strong southern sympathy ties while being a northern border state back when. They fit right in with the likes of AL, VA (their neighbor), et al still.

That’s too bad. My dad is 85 and from Baltimore. I love hearing his stories of growing up there in the 1930s and 40s before moving to California after WWII. It must have been a great time and place to grow up. He’s depressed by the news that comes out of Baltimore these days. How times change.

@Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
Thankfully this has already been blunted a number of times by scholars who point out that cross-offending is the abnormality. Parallel data can be pulled showing robbers tend to rob again, drug dealers tend to deal drugs again, etc.

What I found most telling in this article was:
*****
“However, sex offenders were less likely than all released prisoners to have a new arrest resulting in a conviction.”
*****
So much for frightening and high. Even taking the re-offense numbers from the story, it’s nowhere near 80% (“An estimated 7.7% of released sex offenders were arrested for rape or sexual assault during the 9-year follow up period”).

just want to throw it out there,sex offender list is b/s as we know ,but any one can go down to the local court house and find about anyones’s past ITS CALLED FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT! I guess some people will go online,instead of getting off their lazy asses to find out

True, anyone can find out anyone’s criminal past at the place of conviction. In other words, a historical record in a specific location. That is a far cry from current address, photo, height, weight (ladies, how rude is that???), tats, medical scars (HIIPA???), place of employ, license plate, etc etc. All current details as compared to a historical snap shot in time. All things nearly impossible to find out, lazy ass or not.

Plus, while it is probably the most damaging aspect, there is much more to the sex offender registry than public notification.

People will (almost always) seek information online before venturing to the court house(s), or to wherever the records they seek may be stored.

Most court civil and criminal records are organized by county. There are over 3100 counties or county-equivalents in the US. Unless you have enough information about someone to narrow down the possibilities to a likely few counties, it would be impractical to visit court house(s) to seek criminal records (even online). For that reason, before the advent of online records, people could move to another state and effectively leave their pasts behind, start a new life. They couldn’t hide from law enforcement, perhaps, but they could obscure their past well enough as far as their neighbors and co-workers were concerned.

Online records, whether free or sold by data aggregators, change all that. Not much about people’s pasts can be kept secret anymore. For most records, you can either pay someone, or you can access a counties free online records, if you know what county to search. Of course, not all counties yet put their court records online. And of those that do, the records may be limited, incomplete, and going back only a few years.

Still, most people don’t bother to take the time and effort to go poking into other people’s pasts. They mostly don’t care. But the SORs make it way too easy for people to overcome their natural laziness. Statewide lists are aggregated in one single easy-to-search online database. In many cases, push notifications are sent to interested subscribers. Were it not for the easily-searchable statewide SORs, push notifications, and constant fear-mongering in the press, most of us could manage to live as relatively unknown and unnoticed as others do, despite the public nature of court records and their ease of accessibility.

@Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly:
Having spent some time in MS here and there, I can say that Lowndes County (and the City of Columbus) could help public safety quite a bit more by cracking down on the robberies and shootings that routinely happen, not to mention the drug dealings. (No surprise it’s high crime, since Columbus is a USAF town.) But no, let’s worry about the RCs who aren’t doing a thing besides trying to live. Last I ever heard, Columbus can’t keep officers, with their being routinely 1/3 understaffed. I have to think LCSO isn’t a whole lot better.

I found laughable the statement in the article saying, “Mississippi will soon be switching to a system where the sex offender registry will be printed on the offender’s driver’s license.” Umm, that law was passed back in 2007 or 2009 (I forget which). So either that’s a fine example of MS moving at the speed of government, or the “journalist” is a bit off on the info…or both. I know MS has a marked DL, but I seriously doubt it’s putting “the sex offender registry” on licenses! Are they going to micro-print it?

Likewise the statement of, “Even during a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, sex offenders have to follow a new law.” Given it’s on the MS RC form I was given a year or two ago (item #16), it’s hardly “a new law.”

For those interested, I’ve uploaded the form I was given: https://ufile.io/w769q73c (#11 makes me laugh. Yeah sure, I’ll contact you with mistakes….F you, MS.)

AJ, whenever I think of Mississippi (which I will always remember to spell correctly thanks to my First Grade Teacher) I think of William Faulkner retreating to a rustic cabin outside of Oxford (Mississippi), hanging butcher paper up on the wall, dipsomaniacally blasted on Jack Daniels, to write by hand “The Sound and the Fury.” I think that’s the closest ole Miss got to real brilliance.

People who support Registries are fucking idiots. Or they are immoral and/or hateful scumbags. That’s the end of the whole story. Deserve a bullet between the eyes.

Regarding #11, was that the law? I’m guessing not. I’ve seen so many of these similar forms where the law enforcement criminals (LECs) are not able to do just even the basics of SIMPLY OPERATING WITHIN THE LAW. In fact, I have ALWAYS seen that they operate outside of the law. They don’t seem capable of knowing the law or caring to follow it. Who could possibly respect such criminals? Not decent people.

When I see things that are not legally required, I won’t initial it. I draw a line through where the initialing should be (because you know the criminals would just add yours) and I draw a line through the entire statement. I’ve always told the LECs that if their little brains need some extra “information”, they need to go tell their criminal legislators so they can make it “legal”.

@Will Allen:
“Regarding #11, was that the law? I’m guessing not.”
—–
I likewise suspect not, and a quick scan of MS’s ML statutes (http://state.sor.dps.ms.gov/so_law.html) doesn’t seem to say anything either. I even looked for some sort of catchall allowing the Director or whomever to make other rules as deemed necessary. While such may be there, my cursory review didn’t see it. As with #17 (approval requirement for state parks and beaches), I suspect some know-it-all at the MS ML office decided it made sense and added it.

Nothing like Mississippi putting a warning shot out there just to scare people. They can do the same thing like their neighbors in Alabama have done with just a numerical code which translates to a person on the registry. Hopefully some Mississippi lawyer is warming up the computer and printer to use the Alabama driver’s license case as a template.

I still don’t know why someone hasn’t in Alabama asked for an injunction on that because it’s still compelled speech even though not everybody has a secret decoder ring to show what that numerical code is. It’s ridiculous on the gulf coast these days.

@TS:
“I still don’t know why someone hasn’t in Alabama asked for an injunction on that because it’s still compelled speech even though not everybody has a secret decoder ring to show what that numerical code is.”
—–
Yeah, I’ve wondered the same. I do recall the Judge kind of hinting that some sort of marker would be okay (i.e. meeting scrutiny), but the neon-flashing SEX OFFENDER tag was not.

As you say, it’s still compelled speech. It matters not one bit who, if ANYone, understands the Government’s message; all the matters is the Gov’t is making me speak on its behalf and I disagree with the message.

I left a comment on the main SOLs office website under the story for this a while back with no reply. Maybe they don’t want to pick the fight or have the resources to do it. IDK

Blatant words, numbers, codes, or symbols forcing me to say something on behalf of any fed, state, or local gov’t is BS regardless of message and place, e.g. ID/DL. Principle is principle. Any judge who kinda tacitly agrees with anything that is not obvious compelled speech is complicit with the compelled speech ideal. Very sad.

I actually had the gent at the DMV/DOL breakdown for me the entire set of items on the DL they issued me, which he happily did. I realize I could have probably found it online, but that was not the point. He rep’d the state gov’t so he should be held accountable for knowing and sharing the specs. That does not mean it is not hidden in the mag/bar/QR coding on the back, but I cannot tell that and did not ask. Next time.

“State and local laws push more registered sex offenders into low-income Colorado communities. Data shows disproportionate number of offenders live in impoverished neighborhoods, and community organizers aren’t happy about it.”

Denver used to be such a great town. It was lots of fun. Now, it’s off to an ankle monitor motel on Colfax, no more Brown Palace for you such is the fading of your star! Try not to be seduced by the black tar or the brown powder on your way down. Save that for the very end. Where once you were a sensation at Cheesman Park or Capitol Hill, now you’ve got only a respirator to keep you company and must stop to rest every few breaths. And that goddamned gps! It’s all you can do to keep from ripping it off completely. The only contact you have with people anymore is when you go down to King Soopers to spend your food stamps. Thank Jesus, however, that we aren’t being punished. Now THAT would be intolerable.

My autistic son with mental issues and developmental delay downloaded child pornography and was charged by the state. Despite testimony by his psychiatrist and sexual treatment provider (I started treatment prior to it being ordered – he never was aroused by testing done), the court found him guilty and sentenced him to 3 years probation and put him on the registry for 10 years. My husband literally begged his place of employment to keep him on (it was computer services) and he was allowed to keep the job. He never downloaded anything at work. He moved on to another full time job and is working as an IT tech. I am scared to death of what will happen to him when we die as there are no family members who will help him. He has resided with us since his conviction in 2013. MY QUESTION IS re: background checks. He is applying for a job at the university where he worked before and the background check has been horrendous. He violated his probation and received another 6 months or year (I can’t remember.) When a background check is done does the prospective employer receive actual copies of the court documents and Adult Parole and Probation documents which made the recommendations for punishment (the judge did not put him in jail for 4 months despite their recommendations.) The probation documents contain at least 12 references to the type of images he downloaded and they are not good. Autistic individuals compulsively collect the porn files so I don’t know if he even looked at these files. Does the employer receive actual copies of the court documents, including the documents with the sexually related files? We gave the employer copies letters from his care providers, including his psych MDs explaining his behavior. I doubt he will get the job. Can you help someone help me with these questions. Also should hire a company and do our own background check report? Also I hate the system, all of it now.

People with Autism shouldn’t even be on the registry. Life is difficult as it is for these individuals. Being born with a spectrum disorder is punishment in and of itself. The registry “public humiliation” just compounds their innate, preexisting punishment!

“The Lakeland, Florida police department is required to “encourage adoption” of Ring products as part of a secret agreement with the company.”

“The result of Ring-police partnerships is a self-perpetuating surveillance network: More people download Neighbors, more people get Ring, surveillance footage proliferates, and police can request whatever they want.”

This statement is so true:

“When really powerful companies, or police for that matter, are incentivized to find crime, they’re going to find it no matter what,” Gilliard said. “It’ll ultimately shift the definition of what is a crime and lead to over-policing in some ways. Frankly, [it’s] the broken windows style that tends to harm marginalized communities more.”

Amazon gives the police department access to Ring’s “Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal” that shows the police all of the active Ring doorbell cameras in the area. It lets them interact with the camera owners directly. They can request captured footage for investigations without a warrant. A law professor quoted in the article points out that this can lead to due process violations. Police normally need warrants to collect digital video data (on a specific target who is subject to an investigation). Another said self-surveillance is potentially a form of government surveillance.

I think everyone should read this article, but perhaps especially any of you who use Ring Doorbell, or similar products that connect to a service provider’s servers over the internet. It is that connection to a service provider’s servers that enables this kind of collusion between the service provider and the police. In this case, it was all supposed to be secret. There was never any intent by Amazon / Ring to disclose the police partnership arrangement to product purchasers / service subscribers.

But something for all to consider about self-surveillance, even if the data you collect only goes to your SD cards or NVR or computer storage. The self-surveillance data you collect and store is but a step away from being obtained by law enforcement (e.g., by warrant).

Thanks for sharing that explosive article. It is a shame those offices are encouraging this through that particular entity. It’s pretty sad our world is coming to this. I wonder sometimes if there’s not someone behind the green curtain who is actually able to tap into a ring doorbell and see it in real time because we are so unaware.

So today the LOSER GOON SQUAD (SD Sheriff) came out to check for “compliance” on me and housemate.
NEITHER of us are on PAROLE/PROB

Loser cop talks all kinds of SHIT to housemate that If I dont come out they will come back with MORE than 2 of the goons from the goon squad club and bs about we will break the gate down etc…

housemate came in to get me I said NOPE and gave them Janic’s phone # (who instructed me a few years to NOT TALK to them DONT GOTO the door put your blinds down and IGNORE the SCUM….)

So below is VIDEO from my RING Doorbell…. Funny they will come back with MORE than them TWO ? i’m not impressed nor intimidated they CAN NOT DO ANYTHING, they DON’T HAVE A WARRANT, CANT GET ONE, and have NO AUTHORITY under the 290 code to even DO Compliance checks !(Mister PIGLET…. What penal code is your COMPLIANCE CHECK under ??)… NONE…. IT DOESN’T EXIST ! No one has reported a crime etc… Plain harassment ! (So what is like 10 cars or 10 PIGS gunna show up ? sounds like HARASSMENT TO ME!!) So I never went out, and will NOT go out.. I happen to be behind a LOCKED Gate on a BIG piece of property. One even says “THEY CAN GET THROUGH THE GATE” WTF for ? to see if a 290 is living here that you have NO AUTHORITY to even check on ?? These DEGENERATE SCUM like to CONTROL PEOPLE, DO DATA COLLECTION ETC… well my # is closed (CDCR) , NOT under LAME PAROLE/PROB and now they are butt hurt as they have no authority on this matter and I basically silently flipped them off… as they are POND SCUM ! REAL SIMPLE !

If the Registries were not 100% unacceptable then I think I would feel kind of sorry for these officers. It’s pretty pathetic. But if they support the Registries then I hope everyone knows what I wish and pray for them.

It looks like you have a great home setup there!! That is what all Registered Families should have. But it does seem just a heck of a lot easier to simply never answer your “door” (gate!). You can see who is there, so just don’t talk to them. Let them come back 10 times, that would waste a pile of resources and be perfect. Let them bring more people, that’s even more waste and more perfect.

Fuck these criminal regimes every day. Because Registries exist, NEVER support them.

You did good. Never open your door if you’re not on probation or parole. I also have a locked fence and they finally stopped bothering me. If they brake in without a warrant, cha-ching, you will be able to make some money off them. Record everything!!!

Actually a small follow up on the GOON Squad ! I had missed some video… BUT RING to it all… they should be in order…. Sound doesnt always pickup but vids are in order…. from 7:59Am till about 8:12AM

Then the GOON squad drove up around the corner and PARKED (and get this one of the LAME’s is supposedly a SEARGENT… well DEFINATELY not professional ! (Id had to have him wanna save my life) (Prolly corrupt)..

It is now 2:10 PM and the car is still out there….. waste of time ! This could constitute HARASSMENT or STALKING !

One thing I forgot to mention (there may be audio..) is they asked housemate if he KNOWS what My charge was (trying to make me sound bad) HAHA His was way worse… Mine was a under 18.
The SD Sheriffs office here is a JOKE….

@bob:
Thanks for posting these vids. It was humorous to see them doing their groveling “work”, waiting and waiting…all for naught.

Correction, though. That dude was only a Corporal (two stripes) not a Sergeant (three+ stripes). And the dude with him was a total flunkie (zero stripes).

What’s funny is in the video ending in 889, the Cpl. says to flunkie that they cannot make you open the gate. Yet later on they give tough talk about busting through it or whatever.

That they threaten to come back with reinforcements certainly undermines that is a basic (and constitutional) “knock and talk.” Good thing this paperwork is so vital. Heck, they even mumble to each other that they were able to “confirm but no contact.” Okay, so if it’s about confirming you live there, THEY HAVE THE INFO and said so themselves!
=====

“have NO AUTHORITY under the 290 code to even DO Compliance checks”
—–
They have authority based on SCOTUS case law. Anyone can approach anyone’s front door (here, your gate and the Ring) to attempt to engage with the resident. That means LEOs, Girl Scouts, UPS, next door neighbor, etc. However, if they don’t receive a reply or are told to leave, they must leave promptly and directly. No snooping around to see what they can see. No further ringing of the bell. Leave.

Have you thought about installing privacy slats in the chain link?

Finally, did you get that Ring doorbell free from the Lakeland (FL) PD? 🤣😂🤣

HAHA I read that about lakeland and free RINGS ahah, So a TINY UPDATE…. when roomate came home at 2 CAR was out there… .so in MY ARSENAL… I have a MAVIC PRO 2 DRONE… in a few im gunna FLY it out there 🙂 Will update..

I haven’t had time to watch these. Did they actually say that they would break into your property? That sure sounds like an illegal threat to me. Perhaps you should call state police and demand assistance? Or a federal police force? And an attorney to make them follow the law.

They sure did said something along the lines they will KNOCK the LOCKED GATE down then you can hear the SCUM CORPORAL on the RING Video tell his little lackey… “WE CANT ACTUALLY GO IN PAST THE FENCE/GATE)

So here is why my housemate went out there and I didnt…. This was his 1st visit from the piglets to this address (he is NOT on parole either)… and he is a 290 also… as for me I NEVER went out there LAST YEAR and I DIDNT THIS YEAR EITHER fuck them, I will NEVER EVER go out EVER and BEND to their slime so called AGGRESSION/INTIMIDATION.

@bob:
The slugs probably milked the gig for all it was worth. Why go do any amount work when you can sit in a car all day drawing pay and justify it as a difficult or resistant 290? Protect and Serve, my a$$.

Bob ~ LOVED the videos, and I am glad you recorded everything. I know, they “think” they are just doing their job, but the HAVE to know this is not legal or in any law. There is NO need for a compliance check, except to harass and only to harass. I hope, they will see these videos and feel embarrassed.

@AJ your 100% correct they are SCUM sucking off thier job/the system….
Most embarrassing part @someone who cares is THEY can be heard in one of the video’s (this isnt EXACT… but something about a SIGN and 290’s and JOKING about it ! This is UNPROFESSIONAL) and another word I cant think of Plus DISRESPECTFUL…. Basically a ROGUE COP that shouldnt even be a cop… they agreed to be respectful etc in their oath… Hope the PIG sleeps at night and when someone someday guns him down in some random call he may be on, I always say… GOOD another one bites the dust… haha Worthless POS.

If I couldn’t only enhance the audio it would make his department look like SHIT.. then again the SD SHERIFF Runs the jails… same POS. In 12st VIDEO Loser corporal… name on his shirt is in clear VIEW ! ahah LOSER !

We will see if they come back in the AM if they do MORE video Plus ill launch the drone up and get some aerial video ahha

Almost as funny when they were talking SHIT in one video about 290’s//// They must have been Stupid AF not knowing they were being recorded….

The videos certainly are entertaining but should not be needed. They weren’t needed in this case. I understand that too often law enforcement criminals (LECs) do commit crimes but I would hope they rarely do.

If a person lives in an apartment building, they should simply just never acknowledge LECs that show up. Don’t answer the door. Don’t communicate with them. Just ignore them. Exactly what they deserve.

LECs and their ilk aren’t bright but eventually they will figure out that they aren’t welcome and that trying to visit a person will never be useful.

In the past, I have considered having an attorney send a letter to the LECs and government attorneys and officials and telling them that they are not welcome at my properties for anything related to their harassment Registries and should never go there for any purpose related to that. Perhaps/probably they would ignore that completely but I’ve got to think if they came on your property later and there was ever any problem, that would help in court.

This is the problem with “child pornography” is that it gets used as a term awfully loosely. A Customs guy accused me of having “child pornography” after I came back from a trip to, I think it was Indonesia, because I had a single photograph on an sd card of a little boy and girl looking over their seat towards me sitting behind them on a bus or train and giggling. I realized then that there was no point in traveling with a camera ever again. They will claim that absolutely anything is C.P. There have been cases where excerpts from legal, widely-circulated motion pictures have been considered to be “C.P.” The government can claim that excerpts which focus their attention on a kid can rise to the level of pornography given the offense history of the person making or viewing the excerpt.

This is the slippery slope of the child porn laws and it’s impossible to tell what people have pled to over the years. I’m sure that a great deal would not meet the legal definition of illegal “child abuse material” were they to go to court. The problem is plea deals and prosecutors scaring the hell out of defendants to take them.

One of the most disturbing aspects of these laws is that they often are “status” crimes in which the criminal history of the individual is what can make the material “child pornography.” Scary!

Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly,
Unfortunately his terms of Parole that he agreed to were very strict. “conditions he agreed to meet in order to be paroled. Number 8 reads: I shall not view, access, possess and/or download any materials depicting sexual activity, nudity, or erotic images.”

“In this case, the individual was ordered not to watch nudity,” said Merante. “If nudity is in that show, then he’s in violation.”

Under those conditions, I would have limited myself to “G” rated movies only. We often don’t know a movie has nudity until after viewing it. Of course if all you have is kids rated “G” movies, they will only assume you have them to entice children. I remember that the police found a bag of candy in my pantry during a probation search. They treated me as if I had the candy to lure children. When in fact it was just old Halloween candy that was on sale after Halloween for my own sugar cravings.

Ha, thank you, Lake! 🙂 It seems as though everyone has a parole candy story.

Anyway, I must have missed the part where he said he was on parole. Yeah, I’m afraid he’s got nothin’ comin’ while on paper. My parole was hideous and that was decades ago. I can’t imagine what it’s like now.

I had a friend who was given as his parole conditions that he have no more than one candy bar in his possession at one time.

Well, his parole agent inspected his home, found one candy bar unconsumed and one empty wrapper in the garbage. For that, he was violated! But, he was not taken into custody during that visit. He was told (?!) he had to turn himself in the following Monday morning.

Well, that proved to be beyond the pale for him and so he hopped a plane and flew to Florida where his family lived.

Incredibly, the parole agent simply transferred his parole to Florida. No penalty for absconding.

So update: 5:57P just took my drone out and up about 150′ did a recon of whole street not there ! haha Funny thing @AJ I haven’t watched much of the RING video but they must be STUPID AF NOT knowing that the RING records, Plus I actually have a 8CH DVR with 8 1080p CAMS all over (no audio) that records 24/7 LOL…..

Should be interesting if they come back with their whole INFANTRY as they told my roommate (I think that is in the last video)….

I noticed some gibberish hating on 290’s in that video ending 889
these F*CKS can ROT in hell, super unprofessional I wish I could enhance the audio to make it perfect and do a citizens complaint.

@Notorious D.I.K. / Kennerly I thought that is what they said something like make a 290 sign or something to tell everyone, I couldnt make it out really good ;( But I did hear them (garbled) and something like LET (smomeone?) know…

They are tyrants, not professional and they are disrespectful, which in both of them reasons alone they should be working for the Sheriff, Glad I can now cost them money !!

About a week ago, I saw a report that a bunch of police officers were fired for statements they made (on Facebook I believe) in Philadelphia. They basically were making vulgar comments about many different races and groups. It might be worth sending some of this video to the media to show how corrupt the officers are.

As I watch the news this afternoon about a young local cop getting gunned down I don’t have an ounce of sympathy. I kinda get the feels a little, but they quickly pass when I think of their annual harassment and other gross abusees of power.

@Bo:
“Its come to my attention that there is now a special branch of the us marshals, the sex offender investigations branch. Their sole duties seemed to be looking only for snora violations.
—–
This isn’t anything new or secret. It’s part of the “National Sex Offender Targeting Center” and its statistics for FY2018 can be found at https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/index.html. According to that data sheet, they checked on 54,328 RCs over 383 compliance-check operations, or about 142 per “field trip.” Of that, they arrested 10,834 (19.94%), which I found surprising. Sure sounds like a fun day in the squad car to me. At least they can go home proud of the important work they did…

Just remember, they can’t arrest you if you don’t answer the door (unless they have a warrant, of course).

And from that link, in regard to IML they processed 4600 international travels since 2016, leading to (wait for it) 128 leads to investigate, or 2.8%. I’ll bet that led to 20 or fewer arrests, otherwise they’d tout the number of arrests (which led to even fewer convictions).

I wonder how many of the 2.8% were for LE entities who had not completed their SORNA notification process to the proper authorities by the time the traveler was in the airport trying to depart and who had actually completed their notification process as required?

Just an idea on labels …..
I prefer “PCOAO” (Person Convicted Of An Offense [pronounced “Pe-ko-uh”) or POCOSO (Person Once Convicted Of a Sexual Offense [if you feel it necessary to include the word “sex” in the description], [pronounced similar to the artist named “Picasso”].).

Both of those the acronyms serve multiple purposes. First, yes they identifies me as someone who was convicted of something. However, these acronyms suggests taking a moment to consider the many people who have similarly transgressed but have eluded conviction. Secondly, these acronyms are about something that happened – one occurrence, true enough, but clearly these acronyms are not a description of who you yourself are as an actual person – they refer to something that happened in the past. Period.
(For a further example, if I used an acronym like “P’WAAT” to describe a “Person With An Ankle Tattoo”, that really doesn’t tell you anything more about that person aside from that one small fact, does it? )

It is great to see someone thinking about this. I’m sorry to say though that I don’t care for terms that indicate that a person has been convicted of something.

To me, a person is convicted and he/she pays for it. Then it is a done deal. A person transgressed and paid for it. People who support the Registries want a person to pay for a $EX crime forever. They want that person to feel as if he/she is a $EXUAL deviate and criminal, unable to control his/her “urges”, and always on the edge of “offending”. So I’m not into any label that acknowledges an offense in any way.

In my case personally, I feel as if I did something wrong and paid a steep price for it. And it was between me and a victim. Not against some bunch of people in some town somewhere I’ve never been (but whose “$EX offender” laws I would be subject to were I to go there).

Today, I feel as if I am the victim and being offended against. So I’m definitely not going to keep acknowledging any wrong doing. In fact, if a person supports the Registries, then I don’t even care if they are a victim or not. They deserve it as far as I’m concerned. There are going to be more victims of $EX crimes in the future and the victims preferably will be people who support Registries. That is paying it forward.

I still prefer “Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment (PRHRP)”. And that is because in reality, Registries don’t have anything to do with past crimes or preventing future ones. They are for H, R, and P. That is the purpose. That is why a person is listed on a hit list.

****
I still prefer “Person Registered for Harassment, Restrictions, and Punishment (PRHRP)”. And that is because in reality, Registries don’t have anything to do with past crimes or preventing future ones. They are for H, R, and P. That is the purpose. That is why a person is listed on a hit list.
****

Actually, part of the reason for the Registry is to alarm those around you that you are a threat. It is also a direct relation to you stating you are a direct threat. Thus, the registry is posing as a “deterrence” to prevent you from recidivism. The recent NC case that went to the Supreme Court just stated that social media is a public square. The registry is also on a public square and can be shared via online or via physical newspapers or flyers.

Deterrence is a form of punishment. If the registry can be shown to prove deterrence, then it throws the whole non-punishment scheme into invalidity. The IML is a form of deterrence and retribution as the USA is advertising you are a current threat such that other countries can use the information to do what they may once you’re identified as a current threat to society. In Europe, some countries will let you pass. In other countries, you are banned. Your freedom to travel internationally has been hampered by what the US government has done by the demarcation on your passport that you are a present danger.

The US government has no reason to identify you to the rest of the world other than to be retributive in action. In essence, the US government is stating that you will 100% commit another sexual crime when, in fact, the stats show it is far less than 100% or the “high and frightening” 80% false threshold denoted in Smith v Doe, 2002 SCOTUS decision. Thus, propagating the narrative, “Once a sexual deviant, always a sexual deviant.”

If the courts start mounting that the registry is punishment via deterrence, retribution, or other forms of punishment, then the registry fails. View this like 3/5th compromise. Although it was passed, it was later overruled to be unconstitutional. Welp, people who commit sex crimes are treated far differently from other convicts, including murderers. This myth that people who commit sex crimes cannot be rehabilitated due to a false “frightening and high” 80% recidivism rate in Smith v Doe, 2002 SCOTUS case condone that people of sex crimes can be treated far differently from other convicts.

The registry is a deterrence tool as you pose a current threat to society. Please note, the Smith v Doe, 2002 SCOTUS decision did say the registry is a tool, but it was not defined correctly. Deterrence is a form of punishment.

Good feedback because I really, really do think it would be useful to brand Registered People. Maybe need a marketing study?! Could do some surveys easily enough.

I’ll think about it more. I don’t think I even prefer “Registered Person” because what does that mean exactly? Registered for what? Why?

I do think saying “Person Registered for _______” piques the interest of a person. What is the person Registered for? And I don’t think it should include the word “$EX” or “offense” or anything like that. The offense is past history. Done and paid for. Refuse to ever acknowledge again. People are only Registered for future harassment.

Could PRHRP just be rearranged? Perhaps PRPRH? Maybe?:

“Person Registered for Big Government Harassment”

“Person Registered for Lying, Nanny Big Government Harassment”

I don’t know that I like putting “Government” into it. Because really, they are just the facilitator and promoter. It is the anti-American people living in the U.S. that enable Registries. Saying “Government” lets the individual scumbags off the hook too much.

“Person Registered as Harassment Target” People could say, “I am a Registered Harassment Target”. Kind of like that.

Don’t know, I’ll think some. Would be cool to throw out maybe 5 candidates and have all 1M Registered People have an election.

This rhetoric parallels that the US Government said it was legal to count a person as 3/5ths a person if you’re a slave. Welp, we’re in the same disposition. We’re not treated like other convicts as we’re forced to continue to serve the state despite no longer being under custody under the guise of a “regulatory scheme”.

Of course, later on, the US Government realized they were wrong. Right now, in California, we can point to laws passed against “3/5th persons” that were recently ruled “unconstitutional”. This would show the systematic retribution and abuse from the state against “3/5th persons”.

Using “3/5ths person” labeling should bring up how the US Government was historically wrong in their scheme and how they are wrong in this scheme today. This becomes more visually apparent when you can’t vote when the ballot boxes are at schools. Hence, the Government is legitimatizing the disrespecting of a full person such that they are not afforded proper redemption. Until you’re off the registry, your civil rights are not fully restored.

Very interesting and creative. Certainly seems about appropriate. Although I’d say Registered People are maybe 9/10ths. What would the label be? “Registered 3/5ths Person”? Have to think about it.

One thing that I think is not so great about it is that I don’t think people care much for drawing very close parallels between Registered People and slavery. There are some obvious similarities, but not that close.

I have to say I really think the term “apartheid” fits very, very well. That is the key feature of the Registries. I also like the phrasing of “Person Registered for …” because that is also accurate. A person on the Registries is signed up. Signed up for what? Apartheid, harassment, and other good stuff. That is why a person is listed.

AJ Is there any way of discovering how many (if any) of the 10,834 arrests were for violations of the IML 21-day advance notice of foreign travel? There are apocryphal stories here about people being dragged off planes, but I haven’t seen any real evidence of that happening.

If one were to be arrested, when would that be? At CBP at the airport on arrival back in the US? Or a visit to your home at a subsequent date?

As I have written before, I am having an impossible time complying with the 21 day notice because both the Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police Sex Offender Unit tell me (repeatedly) that this is not the law in Illinois, that they will not accept a notice more than 3 days in advance of travel, and that I will be completely compliant if I follow the 3-day advance notice required in this state. It’s maddening.

@Illinois Contact:
@TS hit the nail on the head with his FOIA reply.
=====

“If one were to be arrested, when would that be? At CBP at the airport on arrival back in the US? Or a visit to your home at a subsequent date?”
—–
It appears anytime one is anticipating or conducting an international crossing into or out of the US (i.e. in CBP’s backyard), one is ripe for the picking. It’s highly unlikely CBP would go to someone’s residence to nab them. I suspect if the person slipped through the cracks during crossing, one of the sister agencies (ICE, USMS) would do the dirty work.
=====

Regarding your ongoing uncertainty about filing IML paperwork with CPD/ISP, I refer you to the USMS website and its FAQ about IML (whew, that’s a LOT of acronyms!):
*****
Whom do I notify that I am traveling and when do I need to do so?
The IML and the relevant Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) guidelines require that all registered sex offenders report international travel to their respective sex offender registry at least 21 days prior to departure from the United States. Emergency travel must be reported as soon as travel is scheduled.

Can I be arrested if I don’t report travel?
Although not all states require that you report international travel, you may be subject to federal prosecution if you fail to provide notice of international travel or file a false travel notice with your registry.

(https://www.usmarshals.gov/megans-law-faqs.html)
*****
Note that it says arrested if you don’t report travel (at all). So, as usual, the law is fuzzy and vague and leaves one to wonder just what the h3ll is the proper answer. Technically you risk a federal charge for failure to comply with the 21-day requirement. However, since the agency requiring that gives you no method to comply, one would hope nothing ever comes of it (and that a jury would find for you if it came to that).

I suggest you follow the answer to the last question on that USMS page:
*****
Whom may I contact if I have more questions?
You may contact the USMS National Sex Offender Targeting Center at 202-616-1600.
*****
Call them from a safe phone number (it might even be worth the cost of a burner) and ask what you’re supposed to do since your jurisdiction will not accept anything beyond 3 days out. As a lawyer friend of mine was always fond of saying, “if you want to know something, go to the source.” Wise words that worked well for me (and her) over the years.

P.S. If you do call them, it would be awfully kind of you to let us all know what they say. Also, be sure to get the person’s name and log the date, time, and duration of the call.

I always wondered for states that require internet identifiers, if you were to bring them 1000 pages of emails you’ve randomly created, how they’d handle it? And just do that over, and over, and over since there’s infinite amount of variations you can do at no cost.

Someone ought to try. I’m sure they’d ask you why so many and of course the proper response to that would be no response at all.

I expect they’d try to get you to stop. Perhaps they’d “require” you to write each one of them down in a form they had? Then you’d have to challenge that in court? I don’t know but it would be fun to find out.

You just described the Nuremberg Defense. “It was the law” and “was following orders” was the primary defense many lower level Nazi guards used during the war trials. The officers following the law in collecting your information isn’t a valid excuse for directly supporting something that’s very wrong. I’d feel no sympathy for whomever would have to enter the thousands of emails they may be presented with. Maybe if they’d become overwhelmed, they’d actually raise a voice of concern as to how stupid the whole ordeal is.

I don’t think I can blame law enforcement criminals (LECs) for having to do Registration tasks to keep their jobs. But, I certainly don’t give a flip if I piss them off every day. And further, if they actually like Registries and think they are okay, then not only do I want to piss them off, I’m praying that they get shot.

And I think that is another key to me. EVERYONE needs to feel and suffer the problems of Registration. Everyone. So every single LEC should feel pain from the Registries. That is a good thing. Everyone, including all LECs, needs to see that Registries are unacceptable to millions of Americans and that they are going to do something drastic and harmful about it.

It might be better to focus on the Lawmaker.
There was one women who keep showing up in her congress person district just about every week asking him to get her son off the list.
Finally he got tired of her and asked her..
What do we need to do to stop you from coming here?
Get my son off
and he did.

So maybe if we set up small team posting.

Send this email to your congress focusing on ” whatever”

1Too much money spending on this
2. unneeded death
3 affecting family.
and so on.

I can tell you right now that a whole pile of people are tired of hearing me. I tell legislators every month where to shove their Registries. Law enforcement a little less frequently but literally every single time I see them. I’d love to file a complaint every day as well. Need to think about that.

I think the worst thing that we can do is just sit back and be silent. My intent has always been to complain and jeer non-stop until people are so sick of hearing it that they could vomit. The Registries MUST be a constant source of problems for the people who support them. Always. They must pay for them every day.

“Person Registered for…” tact is from the government’s point of view. This doesn’t draw any emotions from the masses of people. In US History, 3/5ths vote is a well known unconstitutional law. You’d want to draw the same conclusion with the registry. The registry doesn’t make a person 9/10ths of owning civil liberties – it’s far less.

Once you’ve served your time, then you should be able to start anew. The regulatory scheme doesn’t restore your full civil rights. In fact, it makes you less than a person as you have to adhere to several different restrictions per state or per country, you are forced to register (and some register for life in certain states), and there are always new rules to take more of your civil liberties away. All judges in the US should know about the 3/5ths person vote from history.

With the regulatory scheme, we know people have used it to hunt and murder people on the regulatory scheme. Yet, the media and justices don’t treat us like normal people to care. They all think we deserve to be murdered. We should be human, but we’re less than human.

With rhetoric, you want it to be similar to meme making – short, poignant, and something you understand quickly without additional explanation.

Not talking politics, but after watching the democratic debate its interesting listening to candidates state illegal border crossing shouldn’t be criminally enforced it should be civilly enforced…. yeah, so, how do we get this “civil enforcement” instead of criminal enforcement?

The registry is civilly enforced. It’s the entire reason why it’s able to be applied to people decades post their sentence completion. Calling the registry a civil regulation instead of criminal is what allows them to bypass the 14th Amendment and post ex facto.

ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website. In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *